It was originally thought back in the mid 19th century at least that Tobit was a Greek text, and therefore a lost Greek text must have been the basis for the Vetus Latina Long Recension. Your inability to account for the Vetus Latina Long Recension is very telling. In any case, textual criticism re Tobit didn't really begin until the 19th century, and the discovery of many ancient Tobit manuscripts. So your observation is frankly irrelevant. What is perverse is that you purport to lord it over scholars who know infinitely more about Tobit than you do.
Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - St Catherine's manuscripts Catalogue(s) plural
- Thread starter TwoNoteableCorruptions
- Start date
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
That is your “explanation” for the streaks, stains, brush-marks and “yellow with age” colour?
(The rough treatment was likely the cause of the unusual scarring, too.)
When I get back to the puter (now on iPad) we will compare this 1859 British Library page with its neighbor, Leipzig 1844.
Try comparing them with other ancient manuscript ink and parchments.
Otherwise by principle, you're both in Sinaiticus circularity and contradicting your own argument (Sinaiticus proves Sinaiticus) are you not?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
That is your “explanation” for the streaks, stains, brush-marks and “yellow with age” colour?
(The rough treatment was likely the cause of the unusual scarring, too.)
When I get back to the puter (now on iPad) we will compare this 1859 British Library page with its neighbor, Leipzig 1844.
You still haven't answered the question...have you yourself ever written with a quill and ink over any scar tissue on any real parchment?
Where's your test cases of other manuscripts (meaning other than the Sinaiticus) with scar tissue and ink, to compare?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Your claims, considering your demands of the defendants in this case, are very unscientific.
You provide no test cases of your own, i.e. studies and images of other manuscripts that you personally have compared with the Codex Sinaiticus in regard to either ink or parchment issues...
You dismiss the evidence and testimony of people (i.e. far more qualified and intelligent men) like Tregelles and Scrivener (by memory) whom you say have never touched or handled and/or even seen with there own eyes the real manuscript in real life, but only saw facsimiles. Yet, you have never seen any part of the Codex Sinaiticus in real life yourself and have only seen it in photographs...
Why should we not dismiss you? Reject your testimony as invalid? Just like you dismiss these men...
Oh...
Did I mention that you spend all day, every day, evading and not answering the hundreds and hundreds of perfectly reasonable and pertinent questions put to you over the years...
You provide no test cases of your own, i.e. studies and images of other manuscripts that you personally have compared with the Codex Sinaiticus in regard to either ink or parchment issues...
You dismiss the evidence and testimony of people (i.e. far more qualified and intelligent men) like Tregelles and Scrivener (by memory) whom you say have never touched or handled and/or even seen with there own eyes the real manuscript in real life, but only saw facsimiles. Yet, you have never seen any part of the Codex Sinaiticus in real life yourself and have only seen it in photographs...
Why should we not dismiss you? Reject your testimony as invalid? Just like you dismiss these men...
Oh...
Did I mention that you spend all day, every day, evading and not answering the hundreds and hundreds of perfectly reasonable and pertinent questions put to you over the years...
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Very true.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
And yes...your comments about Tischendorf doing this and that...are in the realm of fiction and the Twilight zone...
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
A far better, simpler (Ockham), and very reasonable alternative explanation.
That cannot be denied.
Someone simply (more simply than your crackpot conspiracy theory) attempted to wipe it off with something, probably a cloth...
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Here on the same page the slops of whatever was spilt are clearly visible as well (big drops to bottom right of the image).
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Another possibility is here, that it might be one of the marginal commentators (or corrector's) i.e. the one with the brown ink in the left margin, which might have been accidentally spilt and wiped with a cloth...
Looks like the same color ink as the spill in the image bekow
The color similarity is better at the actual link than in my screen shot.
Yep.
When you zoom out at the link, and see the other corrections and overlining etc, IMO, it's more probably the corrector's ink that's been spilt and smeared while trying to wipe it off.
= A far more reasonable, simpler, and sane explanation compared to the infinitely complicated conspiracy coverup theory about Tischendorf etc etc.
Looks like the same color ink as the spill in the image bekow
The color similarity is better at the actual link than in my screen shot.
Yep.
When you zoom out at the link, and see the other corrections and overlining etc, IMO, it's more probably the corrector's ink that's been spilt and smeared while trying to wipe it off.
= A far more reasonable, simpler, and sane explanation compared to the infinitely complicated conspiracy coverup theory about Tischendorf etc etc.
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Steven Avery's image is far to small to see the details I posted above...
Moral of the story? = Never ever take Steven Avery's claims on face value.
Moral of the story? = Never ever take Steven Avery's claims on face value.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Nope.
You are making stuff up.
Here you see the mixed views before the Sinaiticus error.
The Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, Volume 2 (1881)
https://books.google.com/books?id=1McUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA876
This is a reprint, Tischendorf is only mentioned into the early 1840s, so it is mid 19th century.
It is you who can't read. The Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature affirms:
p876 "No 3. The Antehieronymian Latin Version, published by Sabatier, from the Greek (i.e. an unknown Greek Recension) .....it differs considerably from the Greek (Recension I) both in omissions and additions."
Sabatier, P., Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae, seu Vetus Italica ...
(Rheims: Reginald Florentain, 1743; 2d ed., Paris: F. Didot, 1751; repr.: Additur
index codicum manuscriptorum quibus P. Sabatier usus est (ed. B. Fischer; 3
vols.; Turnhout: Brepols, 1976), 1. 706^3.
"Consequently, one has to begin the study of the Latin Long Recension of
Tobit with that given by Brooke-McLean-Thackeray,19 which reproduces a
form of the Latin text of P. Sabatier." p.7 Fitzmyer, "Tobit".
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Why? Your false claim was that there was a belief in the mid-1800s that Tobit was originlly in Greek. I showed you that it was common to believe thta the original was Hebrew or Aramaic.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
If you are trying to say that this Latin was from a Sinaiticus text, using the false date for Sinaiticus, there are various problems.
e.g.
What happened to the Hebraisms in Sinaiticus?
Why did they get lost in the Latin?
QUELQUES HÉBRAÏSMES DU CODEX SINAITICUS DE TOBIE (1923)
Paul Jouon
https://books.google.com/books?id=2-O2ZlAbMTcC&pg=PA168
From the French:
Paul Jouon (1871-1940)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Joüon
was a top Hebrew grammarian, and his Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique of 1923 has been edited, updated and republished in recent years by Takamitsu Muraoka (b. 1938) as A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew .
Wiki
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit (2011)
Francis M. Macatangay
https://books.google.com/books?id=7zDLjpuzVeoC&pg=PA16
Some neglected texts of Tobit the third Greek version (2006)
Stuart Weeks
https://www.academia.edu/3080320/Some_neglected_texts_of_Tobit_the_third_Greek_version_2006_
As with the post above about the Sinaiticus Hebraisms, also ending your try to make Sinaiticus the missing phantom long recension Greek Tobit source for the Vetus Latina.
Francis M. Macatangay
https://books.google.com/books?id=7zDLjpuzVeoC&pg=PA16
Some neglected texts of Tobit the third Greek version (2006)
Stuart Weeks
https://www.academia.edu/3080320/Some_neglected_texts_of_Tobit_the_third_Greek_version_2006_
As with the post above about the Sinaiticus Hebraisms, also ending your try to make Sinaiticus the missing phantom long recension Greek Tobit source for the Vetus Latina.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Now, remember, all sides are trying to accept the Sinaiticus date error.
So they will be tripping over one another.
Ernest Cadman Colwell reviews this 1940 edition here:
The Old Testament in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vatican us, Supplemented from Other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Sepluagint,
Vol. Ill, Part I: Esther, Judith, Tobit.
Edited by the late A. E. Brooke, Norman McLean, and the late Henry St. John Thackeray. Cambridge:
At the University Press; New York: Macmillan Co., 1940.
Or, more succinctly, the Old Latin was one of the sources for Sinaiticus Tobit, as correctly stated by Tischendorf!
(Did he have inside knowledge?)
"C (Codex Reginensis, Rome, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 7), containing the text only as far as Tob 6:12 (the rest being a copy of the Vulgate)."
=========================
Often, the Sinaiticus text is "secondary", also full of bumbling errors, and not to be given the place you would expect for a legitimate 4th century Greek text. We see that in Revelation, Tobit, Hermas and Barnabas, to start. This problem is often masked in the New Testament by "textual criticism". And ignoring signs of Sinaiticus being late, such as conflations that include a medieval component, or the Andreas and Oecmenius commentary connection in Revelation, the colophons, the three crosses note and many more.
Last edited:
I never stated that Sinaitoicus itself was the source for the Vetus Latina. That is a blatant misrepresentation on your part, and you are also seeking to deviate from the crackpot theory that you yourself formulated independently of the scholars, which is that there never was a long Greek recension.
The scholars say that the Vetus Latina is based on a Greek Long Recension, although they concede that different Latin translations may have been made from similar Greek sources, as per Sabatier (long before Sinaiticus was found). Sinaiticus sometimes agrees with the Vetus Latina, sometimes doesn't. Doubtless Sinaiticus is based on some Greek version that never found its way to Rome.
The Greek of Sinaiticus is a different issue from the existence of a Greek Long Recension basing the Vetus Latina. Only you could conflate the issues.
Apart from the very very few people, like Jerome, who were fluent in both Latin and Hebrew, it was invariably the case that all Latin scriptures were translated from the Greek. It would be exceptional if it were not so, and this is what the scholars say, in opposition to you.
Your problem is to account for the existence of the Vetus Latina independently of a Long Greek recension: as to which, the existence of Sinaiticus is irrelevant.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The problem with the long Greek recension manuscripts that were a source for the Vetus Latina is that they don’t exist. Such theoretical manuscripts do not have a lot of pizazz!
Apparently, Antoine Augustin Calmet (1672-1757) theorized such a source and that was noted by Pierre Sabatier (1682-1742), p. 706 in his preface to Tobit in his Bibliorum Sacronum in his Vetus Latina edition, which goes up to p.743. It would be interesting to find the Calmet waiting, which is in French and Latin. His writing will have a “clean room” element, not polluted by the Sinaiticus hodge-pudge.
Other early scholarship, like Richard Simon (1638-1712) contra Isaac Vossius (1618-1689), is focused more on the Jerome question, is Jerome’s Vulgate account trustworthy? Which still arises today! Johann Albert Fabricius (1668–1736) is noted as a source by Swete. Also Swete references Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780-1849), and he is before the Sinaiticus scholarship pollution and confusion, caused by the faux date.
As explained above, Sinaiticus fails as the proposed answer to the missing link. And it becomes a square peg in a round hole. Sinaiticus fits better as a result, rather than a cause, of influences that can include Latin and Hebrew and Syriac. Ironically, this was first noted by a fella named Constantine Tischendorf. He was hoping it would be a deal-breaker for the Athos production position. (He may have had inside knowledge on the production, as in his quote about mountains of Athos manuscripts.) However, the more we study Benedict, Athos and Sinaiticus, the more we see the linguistic and textual versatility and skill required. Note: Stuart Weeks properly raised some of these issues in our conversation, he gets a nod of appreciation.
So, it has been fun learning about the Tobit sources. It can be an ongoing inquiry. Some of your quotes have been very helpful, either for direct use or as a springboard.
Last edited:
So you still won't address the issue of how the Vetus Latina came into being without a Long Greek Recension. Your theory has no substance. It's no use taunting scholars where your own theory is so shot through with insincerity that it doesn't stand any scholarly scrutiny or attention: it has gotten none because it unscholarly.The problem with the long Greek recension manuscripts that were a source for the Vetus Latina is that they don’t exist. Such theoretical manuscripts do not have a lot of pizazz!
Apparently, Antoine Augustin Calmet (1672-1757) theorized such a source and that was noted by Pierre Sabatier (1682-1742), p. 706 in his preface to Tobit in his Bibliorum Sacronum in his Vetus Latina edition, which goes up to p.743. It would be interesting to find the Calmet waiting, which is in French and Latin. His writing will have a “clean room” element, not polluted by the Sinaiticus hodge-pudge.
Other early scholarship, like Richard Simon (1638-1712) contra Isaac Vossius (1618-1689), is focused more on the Jerome question, is Jerome’s Vulgate account trustworthy? Which still arises today! Johann Albert Fabricius (1668–1736) is noted as a source by Swete. Also Swete references Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780-1849), and he is before the Sinaiticus scholarship pollution and confusion, caused by the faux date.
As explained above, Sinaiticus fails as the proposed answer to the missing link. And it becomes a square peg in a round hole. Sinaiticus fits better as a result, rather than a cause, of influences that can include Latin and Hebrew and Syriac. Ironically, this was first noted by a fella named Constantine Tischendorf. He was hoping it would be a deal-breaker for the Athos production position. (He may have had inside knowledge on the production, as in his quote about mountains of Athos manuscripts.) However, the more we study Benedict, Athos and Sinaiticus, the more we see the linguistic and textual versatility and skill required. Note: Stuart Weeks properly raised some of these issues in our conversation, he gets a nod of appreciation.
So, it has been fun learning about the Tobit sources. It can be an ongoing inquiry. Some of your quotes have been very helpful, either for direct use or as a springboard.
And as for the finer details of what Sinaiticus contains and its resemblances to the Dead Sea Scrolls - you have nothing to say.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You should read what I wrote more carefully. It is quite possible there was a Greek text, or multiple Greek texts, behind the Vetus Latina manuscripts, and the Syriac manuscripts. They would be quite different from Sinaiticus, e.g lacking the many Hebraisms and with closer affinity to the Vetus Latina. And I would like to see the arguments made before the Sinaiticus square peg in the round hole. That is why I showed in the post above the Sabatier and Calmet references.
However, if they did exist, why did they all get lost? Why are they not mentioned in those early centuries? And yet the standard Greek text survived abundantly. This gives us pause to consider other origins of the Vetus Latina as well. Jerome was not the only person over a period of hundreds of years who knew Latin and other languages.
You have a hard time writing without resorting to really, really silly bungling personal attack attempts.
Last edited: